I remember when Jim Rome (a guy i loathe, btw) made fun of the WNBA when they threatened to strike. Rome was like, "It would be more threatening, if the WNBA threatened to extend the season, rather than to strike." I usually disagree with him on stuff, but his sentiment was exactly mine. I'd like to see the WNBA players strike, while no one gives a flying fu(k. It'd be like when the umpires of MLB went on strike in 1999 or 2000.
Oh please The WNBA is just crappy basketball ok? Crappy. You bring up Cavs - Heat but I ask you to objectively find me an equal of a Ricky Davis, a Caron Butler, an Eddie Jones - in the WNBA. You can't. THE REASON THEY DON'T MAKE GOOD MONEY IS B/C THEY DON'T PLAY GOOD BASKETBALL. If Stern & the rest don't feel like subsidizing a crap league just for the sake of political correctness then it's their prerogative.
Chauvinism may be a reason, indirectly, that it doesn't make sense from a profit standpoint to pay the women more, for sure. Nonetheless, in the end, there are still as many women out there as men who couldjust as easily make the WNBA as profitable a sport as the NBA is with a percentage of male fans too - like the NBA but reversed, if you will. Sports simply isn't as interesting? worth pouring money into?, etc. to the same percentage of women as it is to men. Most likely I haven't seen as many games as you, but I've seen enough to know, from a completely non-chauvinistic point of view, that the difference is more than just being above/below the rim. Which doesn't mean its a bad thing, just that its different. It really isn't even a women/men thing. My girlfriend loves the NBA but doesn't find men's college basketball as enjoyable or interesting at all for that matter. As she has pointed out (correctly) time and time again, it is slower, it seems like the consistently jack threes, there are always some really crappyp layers on every team, etc, etc.
A lot of the NBA is crappy basketball ok? Crappy. Ricky Davis plays such great basketball that the Cavs are dead last in the league in attendance. Eddie Jones and Caron Butler are so great that they're 23rd in the league in attendance. I guess they make good money because they play such good basketball that nobody gives a damn to pay to see them. I can't believe the tax payers in Cleveland and Miami subsidize such crap. Great post man. I tried to "objectively" find you an equal of Ricky Davis in the WNBA but there aren't any men in the league, something you probably forgot.
Originally posted by JayZ750 Chauvinism may be a reason, indirectly, that it doesn't make sense from a profit standpoint to pay the women more, for sure. Nonetheless, in the end, there are still as many women out there as men who couldjust as easily make the WNBA as profitable a sport as the NBA is with a percentage of male fans too - like the NBA but reversed, if you will. Sports simply isn't as interesting? worth pouring money into?, etc. to the same percentage of women as it is to men. Sports hasn't been ingrained into female culture like it has with men. Women and girls have historically been prevented and discouraged from participating in sports, probably still goes on to an extent today. I think it's naive to expect them to have the same interest level as men just a few years after the creation of the first mainstream pro women's basketball league. The NBA was a struggling league for decades without having to deal with this issue. Thank goodness those dopes who subsidized it kept doing it until it became a success. Most likely I haven't seen as many games as you, but I've seen enough to know, from a completely non-chauvinistic point of view, that the difference is more than just being above/below the rim. Which doesn't mean its a bad thing, just that its different.[b/] If you look at the shooting %, NBA is about 44% and the WNBA is like 42%. This all without the high percentage dunks in the WNBA. Not much difference there. It really isn't even a women/men thing. My girlfriend loves the NBA but doesn't find men's college basketball as enjoyable or interesting at all for that matter. As she has pointed out (correctly) time and time again, it is slower, it seems like the consistently jack threes, there are always some really crappyp layers on every team, etc, etc. The speed of the game is slower obviously because the players aren't as big, strong, and fast. People tuning in to watch should expect that as much as if they watched a college or high school game it wouldn't be as fast as an NBA game Thats common sense. When I talk about not much difference I'm talking about skill level, not athleticism. There are plenty of crappy players on every NBA team. Mo Taylor for one.
I definitely agree, but I don't think Stern's ultimatum is that bad. He's being strict, for sure, but the risk-reward curve for the WNBA has a lot more risk with less reward (for the foreseeable future), so he has to be. I hope they get it ironed out, becuase I know, especially in Houston, there are a lot of people who like the WNBA, especially the at the game atmosphere. I just feel like if no agreements are made, and teh WNBA is put on hold for a year (and then, indefinitely??) it will have just as much to do with crappy and unrealistic negotations on the players part as David Stern giving an ultimatum.
I knew someone would say that. Hmmmm how about: David Stern Topless Night -or- Cat Fighting-No Fouls Night Ahhh I think I have it: Botox Night. First 1,000 Lebians entering the game will get free forehead botulism toxin. Once again, I mean this in a lighthearted fashion; I didn't want to offend any........Botox users.
Originally posted by Timing Only you and your Tom DeLay starter kit buddies would call a stacked deck honest competition and unfortunately it's become your modus operandi. I don't know who my "Tom DeLay starter kit buddies" are, but I call something where the rules are the same for everyone honest competition. If I am playing basketball and somebody else is taller than me (advantage gained through no action of him or myself), or the ref is his buddy (very germaine to your point), I dont deman that I should get spotted some points, I just do my best. You win some, and you lose some. If you knew *anything* about women's basketball you'd know that the size of the average point guard in the WNBA is probably about 5'8" or so. Only about 5 inches shorter than John Stockton, by the way nice one saying that it's lunacy that a woman can't compete with an NBA Hall of Famer. The average height of Women's Basketball point guards is irrelevent. You said "are at an inherent physical disadvantage in their ability to compete on an NBA level". I contend that there are many women in the WNBA that are not at an inherent physical disadvantage to John Stockton. I didn't specify female point guards at all. Nice double dipping though, women can compete with John Stockton and NBA teams would draft them if they could but gee there are no women in the NBA even though it's a "co-ed" league. That flows really well there. You obviously revel in your cluelessness. My entire point was that women can't compete with John Stockton. The advantage just isn't physical. The advantage is skill. Earl Boyknis is 5'6" or so. That is shorter than the average WNBA PG. But Earl can shoot, pass, and handle the rock like nobody's business. If a woman had the abilities of a John Stockton or Earl Boykins, a GM committed to winning would probably sign them. The sad fact is, they do not. That does not mean the NBA is for men only, it means it is for the ~435 best players in the world over the age of 18. As soon as a woman is in that group, and she wants to be one of the worst players in the league instead of the best in whatever women's league she joins, she will have a spot on an NBA roster. The absence of women is not evidence of discrimination, unless the NBA discriminates against many other groups as well. I have never seen an NBA player that was Japanese, Korean, Aborigine, Native American, Indian, an amputee, or mentally r****ded (well, maybe Francis ). Until recently I had never seen a Chinese player. When they are good enough, they get to come to the league. Until then, they can keep telling themselves that they aren't in the NBA because it is discriminatory.
The size of the ball affects the percentages, no doubt. The smaller the ball, the easier it is to handle and the easier it is to fit it into the basket.
Originally posted by StupidMoniker I don't know who my "Tom DeLay starter kit buddies" are, but I call something where the rules are the same for everyone honest competition. If I am playing basketball and somebody else is taller than me (advantage gained through no action of him or myself), or the ref is his buddy (very germaine to your point), I dont deman that I should get spotted some points, I just do my best. You win some, and you lose some. If you're playing someone who is inherently bigger, stronger, and quicker than you while the ref is his buddy and you think that's honest competition then you're pretty clueless. When you're a white male in American society it's probably easy to have a cavalier attitude on winning some and losing some since you don't have the history of losing a lot at the use of disgusting tactics. The average height of Women's Basketball point guards is irrelevent. You said "are at an inherent physical disadvantage in their ability to compete on an NBA level". I contend that there are many women in the WNBA that are not at an inherent physical disadvantage to John Stockton. I didn't specify female point guards at all. Point guards have specific abilities and skill sets. When you say a woman isn't at a disadvantage against John Stockton his position is absolutely relevant to the discussion. John Stockton is only in the league because of the role he plays, he couldn't play any other role. A woman who's 6'1" will not have the coordination, quickness, and strength of the best male players in the world at the same height. This is basic stuff here. My entire point was that women can't compete with John Stockton. The advantage just isn't physical. The advantage is skill. Earl Boyknis is 5'6" or so. That is shorter than the average WNBA PG. But Earl can shoot, pass, and handle the rock like nobody's business. If a woman had the abilities of a John Stockton or Earl Boykins, a GM committed to winning would probably sign them. You say that the size of female point guards (who have a certain skill set) is irrelevant and here you say the skill of being a point guard (which is not irrelevant to physical disadvantages) is the difference. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever played a sport in your entire life. If you wanted to just have a basic skills competition I can assure you there are women who could shoot, pass, and dribble their way with the likes of Earl Boykins. It's the synergy of skills and physical ability that create NBA players and it's the physical ability that is a foundation for being able to hone skills. The absence of women is not evidence of discrimination, unless the NBA discriminates against many other groups as well. I have never seen an NBA player that was Japanese, Korean, Aborigine, Native American, Indian, an amputee, or mentally r****ded (well, maybe Francis ). Until recently I had never seen a Chinese player. When they are good enough, they get to come to the league. Until then, they can keep telling themselves that they aren't in the NBA because it is discriminatory. Nobody has said that the absence of women in the league is evidence of discrimination, only that it's idiotic for you to say the league is "co-ed" and that women do not have inherent physical disadvantages in competing with men on an NBA level. It's your typical head in the sand, pie in the sky ideology at work again, oblivious to the world and the reality we live in that you manage to tippy toe around without getting any on you.
Sorry, but entertainment is supposed to be fun. Rocketman's basketball is rarely entertaining, but I have had some good times at Comets games. It is a fun atmosphere. Can the women play as well as the men? No, but they energize their fans at the Compaq Center. Give the WNBA some $ love, Mr Commish. Just take it from Artest's fines.
The size of the ball probably causes a few more swishes but you also get less of the shooters roll. The regular ball is heavier obviously and it stays on the rim a little more while the smaller ball is a little more bouncy.
Since the ball's allready smaller, how about lowering the rim a foot? Tons more dunks, but they're not really cheap since the players are on average a foot shorter than their male counterparts anyway. Only downside I see would be Dydek becoming Chamberlain/Shaq. ... it couldn't be worse than Slamball.
Want to know the absolut one thing that will make the WNBA even more popular than it's big brother the NBA...... You guessed it, FRANK STALLONE!
Dydek doesn't need the goal lowered to dunk. She can do it now but she won't. She said she doesn't like the way she looks when she does and she also mentioned something about a male friend of hers breaking his finger off or something while dunking.
You guys do know that the women in America are the only ones who use smaller basketballs right? When the women are playing in the Olympics they play with a regular size ball. That is why Janeth Arcain of the houston comets has trouble adjusting to the play and forces many turnovers at the beginning of the season.
